Think step

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds the 'sequential chain' context, indicating a stateful append operation, which goes slightly beyond the annotations that only show all hints as false. It does not disclose persistence behavior, potential limits, or the exact effect on the chain, so behavioral transparency is acceptable but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action ('Record one reasoning step') is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and there is an output schema, but the description fails to document the optional parameters or relationship to chain operations. Key details such as how step numbering works or whether next_needed affects control flow are missing, so completeness is only moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only covers the 'thought' content. The purpose of 'next_needed', 'thought_number', and 'total_thoughts' is left entirely to inference from parameter names, which may be ambiguous for an agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource ('one reasoning step') within a 'sequential chain', which is immediately understandable. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools think_list and think_clear, which clearly handle listing and clearing rather than recording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'sequential chain' implies this tool appends a step, providing a basic usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over think_list or think_clear, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer from the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.